• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What constitutes an "implied contract?"

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

anthonyrd

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I was hired to cover someone's maternity leave position at the hospital which was to last 8-12 weeks, plus additional time for training before that. I was then fired after 10 days for no good reason, a personality clash, even though they are trying to make it look like I was incompetent. I feel I had an 'implied contract with the hospital and thus they are breaching that contract. Would you agree/ disagree? Thanks in advance! Here is an excerpt of that statute/ law followed by another exception to the NY state "at will" employment laws:

“Thirty-seven U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment. Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists." If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.”

Additionally, there is another exception to the “at-will” employment laws in NY State. This law is known as the “Covenant of good faith and fair dealing exceptions, possibly known as "Implied-in-law." Here is an excerpt of that law:
This exception for a covenant of good faith and fair dealing represents the most significant departure from the traditional employment-at-will doctrine. Rather than narrowly prohibiting terminations based on public policy or an implied contract, this exception – at its broadest – reads a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every employment relationship. It has been interpreted, by some courts, to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.
 


anthonyrd

Junior Member
implied contract law NY

I had a non-written contract to work those 8-12 weeks, plus training time. The implied contract law states it doesn't have to be in writing. The dates of employment had a beginning and an ending date. Thus, I feel we had a contract for that time period.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I had a non-written contract to work those 8-12 weeks, plus training time. The implied contract law states it doesn't have to be in writing. The dates of employment had a beginning and an ending date. Thus, I feel we had a contract for that time period.
For what time period? Even based on your own posting, it was non-specific.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
You believe that being told an approximate time frame for a temporary job creates a contract and the employer cannot discharge the employee during that period? What's a polite way of saying "fat chance"?
 

mlane58

Senior Member
Even those with contracts (very small percentage) can be terminated unless it states otherwise in the contract. Good Luck with that, next case.
 

xylene

Senior Member
And why does your inability to conform to expecations of the workplace and your supervisors not constitute a breech of contract on your part. :rolleyes:

BECAUSE it was ordinary at-will employment.
 

anthonyrd

Junior Member
One of you stated, "You believe that being told an approximate time frame for a temporary job creates a contract and the employer cannot discharge the employee during that period?"

Actually, let's just say the job was to start and started on Feb. 1st, and was to last until the usual employee came back from maternity leave. It was agreed that the job would last for no more than 12 weeks after she originally went out. I feel I had a contract with them that started Feb 1st, that did not have a specific ending date, but rather just what I stated above. Thus, it did not have an indefinite time line, just the exact date was unknown.
Also, I'm not stating the employer cannot discharge me during that time period, rather, that if I have an implied contract with the company, that they have to have a good reason to do so, if for no other reason than the 'implied contract' supercedes the at-will employment, just as a written contract would seem to. I've been told at-will states can fire for no reason, unless there is a contract in place, plus the protected status'. Are you saying it is not an implied contract because there is no specific ending date, rather, an approximate date in this case? Or better, is there anyone who is an attorney that would agree that I might have an implied contract type case? I didn't work for them before this; I was hired to come in specifically for this time period and start on the agreed date, which I did.
Thank you.
 

anthonyrd

Junior Member
They did not have cause...

No, they did not have cause. Cause implies that I did something wrong while being employed by them, and they are claiming that is the reason for my dismissal. The fact of the matter is that they agreed to provide me training, and then changed their minds shortly after I started. They are not stating that I was fired, rather they are stating that they just decided to end the position. They're ending the position because they decided they didn't want to provide me with the training that had been promised.
 

xylene

Senior Member
No, they did not have cause. Cause implies that I did something wrong while being employed by them, and they are claiming that is the reason for my dismissal. The fact of the matter is that they agreed to provide me training, and then changed their minds shortly after I started. They are not stating that I was fired, rather they are stating that they just decided to end the position. They're ending the position because they decided they didn't want to provide me with the training that had been promised.
Cause does NOT mean you did anything wrong.

It just means that a valid reason exists to fire you.

You are backpedaling. In your first post you stated this was a personality conflict.

Your training level being insufficient is also 'cause'.

You were terminated, from a temporary job.

Being notified of an approximate duration of a job is not a contact, nor is a promise to provide training.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
No, they did not have cause. Cause implies that I did something wrong while being employed by them, and they are claiming that is the reason for my dismissal. The fact of the matter is that they agreed to provide me training, and then changed their minds shortly after I started. They are not stating that I was fired, rather they are stating that they just decided to end the position. They're ending the position because they decided they didn't want to provide me with the training that had been promised.
Q: Why did you fire Joe?

A: Just Cause.

Q: What do you mean by "Just Cause"?

A: Just 'cause I wanted to fire him.
 

eerelations

Senior Member
They're ending the position because they decided they didn't want to provide me with the training that had been promised.
And that's a valid reason to fire you. Promising to train you does not in any way rise to the level of a contract, implied or otherwise. You have no legal recourse. Period.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top